good question.

I think world peace require that each person out of 7 billion inhabitants of the planet stops being greedy and start sharing it's wealth with others.

There are 2 major issues with that:
1. those who are rich and middle class are unwilling to do it with the poor.
2. some people might exploit the situation to stop working because of free riches.

It's easy to imagine the world of peace and equality but extremely unlikely.
Imagine you ask for cigarette on the street and everyone is willing to give it to you?
Imagine you ask for help to finish your house and suddenly there are 15 people around willing to help?

easy to imagine but impossible, all because of greed.

There is a rapper song (not revealing which one):
"Look for yourself only and fuck others", it's how this world works.

Is world peace possible? And what will that look like? — Vincent

I think if we can convince the people to do away with the concept of 'money'. And introduce a worldwide law so that nobody (really nobody) can own anything anymore. Then we can develop a new economic system (along with technologies like the Internet) so that people don't develop the urge for greed.
The concept of 'money' is the problem that stands in our way. If we convince people not to use money anymore, I think that is possible.
Anarchy is what man was made for, not order.

Anarchy is what man was made for, not order. — Vincent

A non-authoritarian, inclusive commons, participatory order is "anarchy", no?

Anarchy is what man was made for, not order. — Vincent

Anarchy is impossible to achieve because there will always be groups of people formed willing to project their power to get stuff that belongs to others.

We can imagine a perfect world, say it's possible, but there is no way small groups wouldn't pop out with propaganda and promises of better life.
People want better life.

Anarchy is what man was made for, not order.

Anarchism is an old political tendency for university students. When you become maturer and start working and paying taxes you ask for an order. This order can be provided by laws to ensure a comfortable place to stay in

Yes my understanding of anarchy is a society without the oppression of a ruler such as a minister, king, president and even without worship of a god. Total freedom. You cannot compare this with an existing society that exists today.

Yes, groups will then appear with propaganda. Christianity is the greatest example of this. But to achieve anarchy (total freedom) propaganda is of course also necessary. If there's one thing people really want, it's freedom. That is something religion cannot provide.

Yes, groups will then appear with propaganda. Christianity is the greatest example of this — Vincent

Hey, you're very wrong on this.
Jesus in the eyes of Romans and Jews was the biggest anarchist of all times.
Jesus preached freedom that we enjoy still today :smile:

Imagine there was no Jesus and religions still dealing with old fashioned pre-Jesus stuff?

awesome video, I'm enjoying it! :up:

Anarchy, in my opinion, is leaderless and without a system of oppression (like "money"). So we don't talk about taxes anymore. If we set up a world government without the obligation of using 'money'. And if we put in a leader who is interested in the prosperity of the population, then everyone will be able to have a good residence.

Jesus preached freedom that we enjoy still today :smile: — SpaceDweller

Christianity today has almost nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus pleaded for freedom. But most of the followers of Jesus today want nothing more than to oppress other religious people or non-religious people. The followers of Jesus these days have misunderstood the mission of Jesus I think or have been lost over the years. They abuse their minds in the name of Jesus. If Jesus ever existed, it certainly was not his intention.

if we put in a leader who is interested in the prosperity of the population, then everyone will be able to have a good residence. — Vincent

Probably we do not need a leader at all and trust more in ourselves. It is better to look into basic community relationships rather than complex hierarchical schemes as Governments or International organisations

That's exactly what anarchy stands for in my opinion. But to achieve total anarchy, a leader is needed (a new Jesus). Someone who will oppress the people worldwide so that they want nothing more than freedom (anarchy). The people must first be immensely oppressed before they are open to a so-called savior such as 'Jesus'.
To achieve world peace, everyone on earth must be in immense misery to realize that anarchy is the only way out. And that can only be done by someone who leads the people through the misery. So if there is a global climate catastrophe soon, someone will have to stand up and lead the people to freedom. In my opinion, that will also happen, if you are to believe the many predictions of the religions.
Ingo Piepers (Dutch mathematician) uses mathematical formulas to predict that WW3 will start in 2022 at the latest. The many religions have predicted that too. The religions have also predicted that someone will intervene during WW3 and bring about world peace. The so-called Antichrist. The replacement and successor of Jesus.
If you follow the news a little, WW3 could start any moment. That means that probably the new messiah will also come. And I think this man will lead us to the point where we don't need a leader anymore.

Ingo Piepers (Dutch mathematician) uses mathematical formulas to predict that WW3 will start in 2022 at the latest. The many religions have predicted that too. The religions have also predicted that someone will intervene during WW3 and bring about world peace. The so-called Antichrist. The replacement and successor of Jesus.
If you follow the news a little, WW3 could start any moment. That means that probably the new messiah will also come. And I think this man will lead us to the point where we don't need a leader anymore. — Vincent

wow! you're amazing. WW3 2022 and new Jesus but Antichrist!
problem however is, to find a fool willing to be crucified :grin:

do you have a source of this math guy?

EDIT:
by the way you should change your avatar to this one:
First letter is A:
- Anarchy
- Antichrist

https://global4cast.org/ Here you will find the publication of Ingo Piepers.
I don't use the anarchy logo because it stands for the economic system. I use the peace logo because it represents a state of mind. The peace logo stands for world peace. Anarchy (system) will one day create world peace. So the peace logo is actually higher than any sign. And according to Christians, the peace logo also represents an upturned cross with broken arms. So Satanic. Christians find peace on earth satanistic

And according to Christians, the peace logo also represents an upturned cross with broken arms. So Satanic. Christians find peace on earth satanistic — Vincent

I'm well into Christianity and do not agree with you.

do you know the true meaning of upturned cross?
Peter, first pope was crucified in Rome upside down.

I don't see how peace logo could be satanic.
Pope is preaching peace all the time, he even stands with Ukraine to promote peace, I don't see how Christians are anti-peace, excluding fanatics who push for rattle of weapons.

thank you for the link, it's a long read.

well I agree with you. I don't know what an inverted cross stands for. But I've been on twitter for a few months now. And there have been several times an American Christian who has said that I am Satanic because the peace logo means an inverted cross. I didn't know that at first either. But they say the peace sign will be the sign of the antichrist. And if I look up about it, soon someone will come and bring peace to the earth. I want peace. That's the sweetest thing I want. So when a new messiah comes (the antichrist). Then I will follow that person without a doubt. Then I don't listen to those who call me satanic. I stand for peace on earth.

The first port of call is to make list of casus belli. In my humble opinion that's a good place to start if our aim is to find a solution to the problem of war!

Lemme get the ball rolling...

1. Territory

2. Resources

3. Honor
.
.
.

Your turn!

There are immense problems on Earth. There is climate change, hunger, corruption, greed, oppression, inequality, division, etc. And if you consider that after every major war there is more unification of the international system, then I assume if we want to achieve world peace, a new world war is necessary.
A new world war will be no fun for anyone, but as a result, the world will be regarded as one country. There would be no more borders (1 territory). There would be a world government that spread the supplies worldwide. The outcome of a new world war would be that the resources (2) would be distributed fairly. And about (honor 3). If we open all borders and abolish 'money'. Then everyone is the same victim. Then there is nothing left of honor. Everyone was wrong right away and they will need others and will want to contact them.
But to obtain this (a world government) a kind of world war is needed. But this should not necessarily be fought with weapons. A world war (system war) is simply a quest for a new international system with more unification of the world. So I think that justifies a new world war. For the outcome will mean true peace.

Wage war to make peace? Very practical advice, given the givens; the rationale being to reduce competition (the seed of war) via thinning the herd.

This, it seems, is a paradox: The problem (war) is its own solution (war).

As fire drives out fire... — Brutus

:broken:

he problem (war) is its own solution (war) — Agent Smith

Indeed. If you see that there were hundreds of mini-states in Europe before. Because of the Thirty Years' War, the countries started to merge and there was more unification. There was peace. Much later tensions arose again. Until Napoleon came. Another war and the result was that treaties were agreed upon. Another unification of the international system. There was peace again. Much later tensions arose again. Until Hitler got involved. Back war, and what kind. And as a result came the european union, nato, etc. again unification of the international system. There was peace.
Until today. International tensions are immense and have never been as great as now. A new international system is urgently needed. And if you look at the past, that can only be done through 'war'. So to achieve 'world'peace and unification of the world, a major world war is needed. One that everyone should participate in.
That sounds like I'm crazy. But it's the truth. If you look at the war dynamics of Ingo Piepers, you know that the great war will start this year and will last 16 years. As a result, after 16 years there will be world peace (unification of the world). No more national borders.
World War 3 will be the last armed conflict. That's because WW3 won't be the last world war. It will just be the last time we do that with weapons. In the next 50 years there will be 3 world wars according to Ingo P. And each time the result will be: more unification of humanity until the day we can be considered as one thing.

So, like a business cycle, we alternate between pax and bellum. Laozi would've gone "I told you so."

How about if we use a different metric e.g. the humaneness of war? Has war become less horrendous? Stealth, sneak attacks, surprise attacks, launching offensives on religious holidays, and so on: dishonorable conduct. Then again human rights, bans on certain munitions like cluster bombs, the international court of justice (war crimes).

Anarchy means to question/oppose authority.

‘Total Freedom’ meaning what?

If you consider that man has made a lot of progress in developing weapons and technologies and world wars will also become more brutal, I think. Every old treaty is annulled at the beginning of the war and a new balance is sought anew. Human rights no longer exist. The quest for a new international system is so immense that the value of a human life is being negated.
A world war is therefore an international system war. But it is also a value war. Whoever wins the war determines the rules for the peace era after the world war. At the moment that is USA. They won WW2 and are now setting the rules. In World War 3 there will therefore also be a war of value. Whoever wins sets the rules for the next decade. Imagine if Russia will win WW3? What will that peace era look like then?
There are several candidates who would like to win that value war. And because in a war of values ​​there is no such thing as human rights, I think terrible weapons will be used. And now I'm no longer talking about small cluster bombs, but about something much bigger. Today it is possible to destroy an entire nation with the push of a button.
The international treaty and rules say that one should only use an atomic bomb if their own country is in danger. But when WW3 starts, all those rules will be abolished.
If you look at the different religions, they also all predicted a third world war. They also say that there is someone who will interfere with the international system and win the value war and create world peace without oppression.
So if tomorrow or something WW3 starts. Then there will definitely be weapons of mass destruction. Unless the religions are right and the antichrist will be able to stop that.

‘Total Freedom’ meaning what? — I like sushi

Total freedom means to me. No suppression of authority. May choose what you do and also know why you do it without being influenced by a man-made system.
Look at the animal kingdom. When they are not hunting, they are completely free.
Why that's important I think is because animals are free in their way of thinking they are somehow warned about a natural disaster like an earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption. Due to climate change there will be many natural disasters and animals will be warned in advance, but not people because people are constantly chasing money, power, etc. People are not free in their way of thinking because they are trapped by the system.
If we abolish all rules (total freedom) people are much less likely to die in a natural disaster. One way or another one is warned when one is totally free in their way of thinking.

Are you a teenager?

Given our poor track record in wars, even small scale skirmishes, I would have to give your pronouncements my nod (of approval).

This just popped into my head. In terms of (technological) advances, in which area do we have bragging rights - means of saving lives or means of ending lives? From what I gather, we have made more "progress" in weaponry than in medicine. It's not that simple but at first glance this is the impression that you'll get. I wish it was the other way round - wars would become less appealing as a solution (there would be no point to shooting someone if the bullet injury can be treated effectively).

No why? If you're trying to belittle or insult me, I'd rather you didn't speak to me. :rage: